1971 (8) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... missed
Judge(s) : S. K. VERMA., GOPINATH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. N.VERMA C.J.- This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 2135 of 1959. There was a firm, Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram, which consisted of six partners who fell into two groups ; one group consisted of Khanjan Lal, Lalloo Ram, Dwarka Prasad and Ram Lal and the other group consisted of Sewak Ram and Jagrani. We are concerned with the payment of income-tax by the partners of the firm for the year 1948-49. The total tax liability of the firm was Rs. 68,709-4-0. The liability of the two partners of the second group was Rs. 17,177-6-0. The position in law, however, is that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vit filed in support of the writ petition, requiring Khanjan Lal to pay a sum of Rs. 15,586.15 on account of the balance of tax liability of the firm, M/s. Khanjal Lal Sewak Ram, for the assessment year 1948-49 M/s. Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram thereupon filed a writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. The two main prayers in the writ petitions were : (1) for a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 9th June, 1959, mentioned above, and (2) for a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 2,444-9-0 which was in excess of the proportionate share of Khanjan Lal. This amount became excess payment as the amount of tax assessed was reduced in appeal by a sum of Rs. 30,000. The learned single judge allowed the writ p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... observed that, even though the individual partners had been invited to pay their shares of the tax the liability to pay the tax would still remain joint and several and the tax could be realised from one or more of them. This case is clearly distinguishable because in that case all efforts to realise the tax from others had failed. In the case in hand steps were initiated to realise tax from others but they were held " in abeyance under executive instructions ". In this state of affairs, in our view, the learned single judge was perfectly justified in holding that the decision of appellant No. 1 to realise the balance of tax from Khanjan Lal alone was tainted with capriciousness. No argument has been addressed to us with regard to the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X